Bobby Duncan

[mistaram]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;39610176]

So Tomori, Wilson, Mount - along with Keogh - weren’t the ‘foundation’ of that side?

Carson, Pearce and Vydra.

Carson already told you He's finished washed up a liability on stupid wages
Pearce coming to the end of his contract good pro But can only play left centre back never going to depose Tomori was he
Vydra had to sell our best player set season since 2011 only way to meet FFP.
Couldn't have hurt us much we got to a final without them Even went to Old Trafford and won Got 11million for Vydra and he's scored three goals since he left

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=mistaram;39610207]

Carson already told you He's finished washed up a liability on stupid wages
Pearce coming to the end of his contract good pro But can only play left centre back never going to depose Tomori was he
Vydra had to sell our best player set season since 2011 only way to meet FFP.
Couldn't have hurt us much we got to a final without them Even went to Old Trafford and won Got 11million for Vydra and he's scored three goals since he left

Your opinion of Carson...apparently not one shared by City.
Pearce didn’t have to ‘depose’ Tomori...he left for Millwall on loan in January 2019, and that became a permanent transfer about two weeks before Tomori went back to Chelsea. We lost a good player and a leader unnecessarily imo and were left with no cover
Fair point about Vydra, but at Championship level didn’t he score more goals for us than anyone else since God knows when?
See you’ve chosen to ignore the point about Wilson, Mount, Tomori (and Keogh) forming the ‘backbone’ of the squad. Lampard left us with one quarter of that ‘backbone’.

Time to stop now. Getting dizzy going round in circles.

[swaledale]

Oh here we go...the return of the dynamic duo. Are you two speaking again then?

Firstly Swale, I really don’t need you to explain what mista is saying...it’s ‘clear enough’ to me too, I’m just not privy to the detail so was seeking further clarification in a way which would avoid possible litigation. Not at all sure what that’s got to do with you

Yes, you’re right...I don’t know the details of why it took Lampard so long to make his mind up, and frankly I don’t care...all I cared about, in those circumstances, were the consequences for DCFC.

‘Too much time on my hands’ and ‘pedantic’? Hmmm...okay, I’ve recently been self isolating and today it’s been peeing down all day so I’ve answered all the posts that have come my way of late. Something wrong with that?

Really not my fault that you seem unable to differentiate between ‘loans’ and ‘transfers’.
Loans are usually, unless they’re of the Clarke type, temporary short term fixes, whereas ‘transfers’ are permanent and, normally, aimed at longer term gain and building a squad. In the context we’re speaking of here, i.e. what Lampard achieved for Derby, that is crucial...he used the loan market very well...it came close to working...but it didn’t...and once he and his three loanees had left, after about ten months, it didn’t, imo, leave Derby in a very good place.

You are being pedantic! Transfers are generally acknowledged to include loans, yes I know that a loan isn't necessarily permanent, though clubs do loan players and then sign them permanently, as Derby did with Martin!

I didn't make any reference to whether you cared about why it took a while for Lampard's departure to take place, I was merely questioning why you were "slagging" him off for it, when by your own admission you don't know what the reason was. Here me thinking you were a fair minded person!

Are transfers really about long term gain? I rather think your harking back to a long lost era, though even in Cloughie's day I think a transfer was supposed to make an immediate impact for the team (excepting youngster's obviously).

Anyway we signed Kazim-Richards on a one year deal, definitely a transfer as its permanent, but not exactly long term or team building is it, yet no criticism from you about that! Also kind of contradicts your definition! But then its not my fault if your opinion on what a transfer is is wrong!

I mean what manager has the luxury these days of long term team building? Clubs at Derby's level wheel and deal to assemble a squad of players that hopefully will get them promotion in that season. Loans are a way of acquiring perhaps 2 or 3 better quality players than they could afford to buy, without the long term wage implications. If the team gets promotion and lets face it, Frank was a gnats whisker away from doing that, well the club will have the resources to buy better players for the prem.

I don't actually see that he had much choice anyway, the club hadn't got the money or the room within FFP to buy more players, as Mel's sell and leaseback of the ground demonstrated. How did you expect him to buy players instead of the loans with limited funds?

It was only at the end of last season that you were telling me that we would do better not to get promoted because the team could develop and with some good additions in the transfer window we'd be battling for promotion. Now apparently that team wasn't good enough and its Lampard's fault?!

In most clubs what a manager achieves is promotion, cups etc. They could have built the best team in the world, but if they don't manage that then generally their hardly recognised. Lampard got us within touching distance of the prem, thats how he will be judged.

Lets face it Derby have pissed millions away on transfer fees and wages for players that have not performed and thats down to the clubs player recruitment policy. The manager may agree to have a player but he doesn't set the budget or agree how much we pay in transfer fee or wages. In much the same vein he most likely has very little say if we have to sell a player to balance the books.

[Geoff Parkstone]

It's a very curious world today in which I find myself 100% aligned with Swale on this one.

The Bosman ruling underpins this whole scenario that we now find ourself in, to whit short term ism.

You can't plan longer term since players can up and go pretty much when they want OR you end up paying high wages for a disaster as a good player you have tied down under performs.

Pretty much anything has to have a 1-2 year horizon, unlike when we were successful in 70s when you had a player for life.

[Andy_Faber]

It's a very curious world today in which I find myself 100% aligned with Swale on this one.

The Bosman ruling underpins this whole scenario that we now find ourself in, to whit short term ism.

You can't plan longer term since players can up and go pretty much when they want OR you end up paying high wages for a disaster as a good player you have tied down under performs.

Pretty much anything has to have a 1-2 year horizon, unlike when we were successful in 70s when you had a player for life.

Also agreeing. Football Swale talks a lot of sense

[ramAnag]

You are being pedantic! Transfers are generally acknowledged to include loans, yes I know that a loan isn't necessarily permanent, though clubs do loan players and then sign them permanently, as Derby did with Martin!

I didn't make any reference to whether you cared about why it took a while for Lampard's departure to take place, I was merely questioning why you were "slagging" him off for it, when by your own admission you don't know what the reason was. Here me thinking you were a fair minded person!

Are transfers really about long term gain? I rather think your harking back to a long lost era, though even in Cloughie's day I think a transfer was supposed to make an immediate impact for the team (excepting youngster's obviously).

Anyway we signed Kazim-Richards on a one year deal, definitely a transfer as its permanent, but not exactly long term or team building is it, yet no criticism from you about that! Also kind of contradicts your definition! But then its not my fault if your opinion on what a transfer is is wrong!

I mean what manager has the luxury these days of long term team building? Clubs at Derby's level wheel and deal to assemble a squad of players that hopefully will get them promotion in that season. Loans are a way of acquiring perhaps 2 or 3 better quality players than they could afford to buy, without the long term wage implications. If the team gets promotion and lets face it, Frank was a gnats whisker away from doing that, well the club will have the resources to buy better players for the prem.

I don't actually see that he had much choice anyway, the club hadn't got the money or the room within FFP to buy more players, as Mel's sell and leaseback of the ground demonstrated. How did you expect him to buy players instead of the loans with limited funds?

It was only at the end of last season that you were telling me that we would do better not to get promoted because the team could develop and with some good additions in the transfer window we'd be battling for promotion. Now apparently that team wasn't good enough and its Lampard's fault?!

In most clubs what a manager achieves is promotion, cups etc. They could have built the best team in the world, but if they don't manage that then generally their hardly recognised. Lampard got us within touching distance of the prem, thats how he will be judged.

Lets face it Derby have pissed millions away on transfer fees and wages for players that have not performed and thats down to the clubs player recruitment policy. The manager may agree to have a player but he doesn't set the budget or agree how much we pay in transfer fee or wages. In much the same vein he most likely has very little say if we have to sell a player to balance the books.

Lol...there’s something more than a little ironic about being told I have ‘too much time on my hands’ by someone who then produces 400+ words at 12.30 in the morning.

You’re right about two things...I do try to be ‘fair minded’ but it is increasingly difficult on here at times...and yes, Derby have ‘pissed millions away’ on underperforming players over the last fif****(?) years or more.

As regards Martin, I made that point myself about a week ago...and as regards CK-R...yes, because of his age, he’s a short term transfer signing. Who knows how things will work out? Some have already written him off, but if he proves useful we’ll be in a position to extend his contract which, certainly without promotion, we were never going to be in the case of Lampard’s loanees. Same with Duncan.

Anyway, as Ram has pointed out, this thread is entitled ‘Bobby Duncan’...and the question isn’t, imo, ‘is it all Lampard’s fault’. No one has suggested that. The question I’ve raised is...were we any better off after a season of Lampard than after Rowett or Clement/Wassall and my answer is...no. If you think otherwise, say why.

Maybe the relative merits of managers under Mel or since relegation deserves a thread of its own, but I’m not starting it. I’ll stick to Trump...it’s more important and at least you, mista and I don’t fall out over that one.

[mistaram]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;39610232]

Your opinion of Carson...apparently not one shared by City.
Pearce didn’t have to ‘depose’ Tomori...he left for Millwall on loan in January 2019, and that became a permanent transfer about two weeks before Tomori went back to Chelsea. We lost a good player and a leader unnecessarily imo and were left with no cover
Fair point about Vydra, but at Championship level didn’t he score more goals for us than anyone else since God knows when?
See you’ve chosen to ignore the point about Wilson, Mount, Tomori (and Keogh) forming the ‘backbone’ of the squad. Lampard left us with one quarter of that ‘backbone’.

Time to stop now. Getting dizzy going round in circles.

Ha ha getting dizzy Carson is at City for one reason only they have to have a certain number of English players in their squad , he's never played and he never will As a teacher I'm surprised you think 3players out of a squad of 32 makes it the backbone . It's all hypothetical any way because if Lampard was to have remained manager , would Chelsea and Liverpool let them out to us again doubt it . As for Keogh nothing to do with Lampard he decided to get drunk under Cocu

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=mistaram;39610420]

Ha ha getting dizzy Carson is at City for one reason only they have to have a certain number of English players in their squad , he's never played and he never will As a teacher I'm surprised you think 3players out of a squad of 32 makes it the backbone . It's all hypothetical any way because if Lampard was to have remained manager , would Chelsea and Liverpool let them out to us again doubt it . As for Keogh nothing to do with Lampard he decided to get drunk under Cocu

C’mon mista...don’t you start on the teacher ‘crap’. Totally irrelevant and you’re just better than that.
Surely you recognise that every team has its essential players and its relative ‘bit players’. Whichever team you’re talking about there are players that you think, ‘oh ****’...when you find out they’re unavailable, and others you think ‘oh well we can manage without him’.

Lampard built his side around four players...the loanees and Keogh. The loanees left sharpish and the only reason I’ve mentioned Keogh is to illustrate what a bad hand Cocu was dealt within weeks of his arrival.
I’m grateful to Lampard for the excitement of Old Trafford and Elland Road, for getting to Wembley and for Waghorn and, to a lesser extent, Holmes...but in terms of achievement and ‘foundations’ for the 2019-20 season...nothing else.

Can we move on? We usually agree but see this one differently, that’s all.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Maybe the relative merits of managers under Mel or since relegation deserves a thread of its own, but I'm not starting it. I'll stick to Trump...it's more important and at least you, mista and I don't fall out over that one.

A tactical change of subject when losing the debate 😉 - are you related to my missus?

[mistaram]

[QUOTE=ramAnag;39610434]

C’mon mista...don’t you start on the teacher ‘crap’. Totally irrelevant and you’re just better than that.
Surely you recognise that every team has its essential players and its relative ‘bit players’. Whichever team you’re talking about there are players that you think, ‘oh ****’...when you find out they’re unavailable, and others you think ‘oh well we can manage without him’.

Lampard built his side around four players...the loanees and Keogh. The loanees left sharpish and the only reason I’ve mentioned Keogh is to illustrate what a bad hand Cocu was dealt within weeks of his arrival.
I’m grateful to Lampard for the excitement of Old Trafford and Elland Road, for getting to Wembley and for Waghorn and, to a lesser extent, Holmes...but in terms of achievement and ‘foundations’ for the 2019-20 season...nothing else.

Can we move on? We usually agree but see this one differently, that’s all.

RA yes your right time to move on Cocu will never be my favourite and Lampard will not be yours ,leave it at that